Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 10 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 2607 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

I think, Mr Speaker, that it does the Chief Minister no credit whatsoever that she attacked the committee in a media release in intemperate language, especially when it is quite clear that she had at that time either not read the report or not understood it. Her media release launched an unprecedented attack on a committee of this Assembly, with no basis whatsoever. Even her unsupported assertions were demonstrably wrong, and I will return to that matter later in the debate.

Mr Speaker, the committee recommendations deal with the fundamental principles underlying the proposed changes to the public service of the ACT, the issue of contract employment for chief executives and all other executive level officers, the proposal that such contract employment shall be the only method of employing executive officers, and that a separate ACT Remuneration Tribunal be established to determine remuneration for a range of positions not covered by the Industrial Relations Commission.

I would like to address the Assembly on the ideological basis that underpins the proposals contained in these Bills, and the problems that they cause for the future of the ACT public service in Canberra. Mr Speaker, the Government's submission to the committee said, "The changes are not ideological, they are real and achievable". I would suggest that here the Government does, in fact, protest too much. I am somewhat bemused by why a Liberal government in Australia would shy away from being ideological. For over 100 years in this country the conservatives have indeed been ideological. They have been opposed to the ideology of the Australian Labor Party. More often than not, that is what identifies their ideology - opposition to the ideas being generated from the ALP.

The proposal for SES contracts represents an adoption of the ideology of free market private sector materialism. This assumes that the only motivation for people in taking up executive positions in the public service is the financial rewards available on signing up for a contract. It is not surprising that such a view should come from this Liberal Government. It adopts the Thatcher and Kennett models for privatising public assets, cutting community services, and telling those who must rely on government services, such as young people with a disability, that no special treatment will be available to them.

My view, Mr Speaker, is dramatically different. Government exists to serve the community, not simply to protect the interests of those who operate the market. The people who apply to serve our community as executive officers of the ACT public service must have a commitment to serving the public. It is not enough simply to be a good manager. Many people may be good managers, but a good public service manager must contribute to the community, not simply do the job. Good public service managers care about the community. They have a value system that encompasses more than just the bottom line. The fortunate thing about Canberra is the fact that the Australian Government centre of administration is based here, in the national capital. Thus we have access to the best public service managers in the country. This environment must be understood, Mr Speaker, when we consider the proposals put forward by the Government.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .